Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: dunno Date: Jun 2, 2004 10:33pm
Forum: petabox Subject: Re: my shot at massive network storage.

on second thought, RAID shouldn't be implemented at the array level, I'd put it at the node level.
RAIN, redundant array of inexpensive nodes.

node:
400GB HDD qty:12 $:4,800
AthlonXP 2.4 & mobo qty:1 $:72
256MB PC2100 qty:1 $:19
8pt SATA card qty:1 $:100
4pt SATA card qty:1 $:50
intel pro/1000T qty:2 $:70
case & misc qty:? $:189? (this would be half, the cost of the 2U case would be split between two nodes)
tot qty:1 $:5600

storage: 4,687.5 gB

for every 6 nodes (or whatever), one will be a hot spare, the other 5 will each be a virtual drive, with a controller treating them like they're in a RAID 5 array.

if a node drops out, it will immediately be replaced, the networking will all be redundant.

HA servers will be at the head of one or more array of nodes. they will be very very redundant.e. g. http://www.necsam.com/servers/files/320La_product_guide.pdf

maybe some non x86 server (redundant again) as the front-end. HPPA, NEC SH, Fujitsu, SUN, SGI, whatever.

it'd be more expensive, but it'd be a true enterprise alternative, though the software would need quite an investment to hold up US$2 Million+